An easy call
November 30th, 2004 at 11:20 am by David FarrarASEAN wants New Zealand (and Australia) to sign a non-aggression pact, where we promise not to do pre-emptive attacks on Brunei, Cambodia, Indoensia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Phillipines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam.
Considering Helen has abolished our combat air force, so hence we couldn’t even subdue Pitcairn Island, it is a pretty easy pledge to make.
Perhaps we should also declare that we will restrain ourselves from invading China and/or bombing Canada.
No tag for this post.
November 30th, 2004 at 11:55 am
Canada? Then whom will we blame?
Vote:November 30th, 2004 at 11:55 am
Indeed we probably should. It looks good internationally and is basically meaningless in a practical sense.
Vote:If the US wants our help in a intervention we can jsut send aid and engineers or somthing.
November 30th, 2004 at 11:59 am
Aren’t non-aggression pacts the sort of thing that everyone signs up to before war breaks out?
Vote:November 30th, 2004 at 12:01 pm
The most famous non-aggresion pact was signed by Helen’s hero and near namesake in 1938 or thereabouts and later broken with BARBAROSSA. What a load of futile poppoycock it all is. One would have to ask “Why are these people wanting such an agreement? We are not a threat to them so why do they want it?” In particular I would not trust Laos, Cambodia and in particular the awful regime in Myanmar and the fair weather friends in Indonesia. Howard has more brains than Helen. He has already declined this generous invitation.
Vote:November 30th, 2004 at 12:17 pm
Well Singapore easy, under the Five power defence arrangements 1971, NZ is committed to the defence of Singapore, which explains why the Labour-Alliance government disbanded the Air combat capability of the RNZAF.
Vote:November 30th, 2004 at 12:29 pm
I don’t know why they’re concerned? Perhaps they have some secret oil stash that we might want to take!
Vote:November 30th, 2004 at 1:00 pm
The Air Combat Wing was disbanded largely because it was never, and probably would never be used. I think it’s far wiser for NZ to invest in naval power.
I don’t think we should sign a non-agression pact with Myanmar – on the contrary I think we should threaten to withdraw from ASEAN unless they prevent Myanmar from assuming the groups presidency in 2006.
Vote:November 30th, 2004 at 1:10 pm
Damn – I meant to qualify my statement about the RNZAF to post-second world war.
Vote:November 30th, 2004 at 1:33 pm
The feel good non aggression pact of the year.
With China also signing the pact means Helen should go ahead and sign because staying in Vientiane she can at least use NZ’s copy of the pact as toilet paper.
Vote:November 30th, 2004 at 1:36 pm
Dim – we aren’t members of ASEAN and have never been invited to join the organisation.
I have no problem with us signing the treaty if it makes an agreement more likely. What I do have a problem with is signing anything that gives Burma any rights or advantages when it comes to trading with us. As far as I am concerned, they should remain under universal blockade until the military recognises the 1990 elections or calls a new poll.
Vote:November 30th, 2004 at 1:48 pm
We’re one of twelve ASEAN ‘dialogue partners’.
Vote:November 30th, 2004 at 2:16 pm
Dim – the RNZAF was deployed on combat missions in the Malayan emergency.
My house has never burnt down, and is unlikely to do so – I haven’t cancelled my insurance.
Vote:November 30th, 2004 at 2:25 pm
‘Dim – the RNZAF was deployed on combat missions in the Malayan emergency.’
I know. That’s why I wrote: ‘Damn – I meant to qualify my statement about the RNZAF to post-second world war.’
‘My house has never burnt down, and is unlikely to do so – I haven’t cancelled my insurance.’
Residents of Alice Springs investing in Tsunami insurance would be a more apt comparision.
Vote:November 30th, 2004 at 2:35 pm
Korea- NZ forces deployed , air combat force stayed home
Vietnam- NZ forces deployed air combat stayed home
Timor- Air combat forces stayed home
Afghanistan- air combat forces stayed home
So based on ONCE in the last 60 years, ie mid 50′s Malayan emergency when NZ air combat forces were deployed and used. Actually during that time, we didn
Vote:November 30th, 2004 at 2:36 pm
I thought that the Malayan insurency was in the fifties – so that was post WWII.
I’ve a mate who was in the Airforce when the upgrade was due to come in and then got canned. He says that they worked out that running the fighter wing basically cost the equivalent of running the DSW for 3 days – so basically we could have a fighter sqdn in operation for a whole year that would have cost only about the same as running the benefits to smoko time on a Wednesday on the first week of the year.
Maybe we should apply the arguement that they haven’t been used for such a long time to the bludgers on the dole, DPB and the sick and de-commission them as well.
Doesn’t help any when we have a PM who protested against them when the Skyhawks were first commisioned in the 60′s
Vote:November 30th, 2004 at 2:46 pm
DSW for 3 days ???
Vote:That includes the pensions, disability, etc which is 2/3 of the benefit budget.
Just cut off the pensions of military personnell who get a fantastic pension after 20 years, ie most can collect in their mid 40′s, and get another job to boot
November 30th, 2004 at 3:02 pm
The reality was that the squadron was going to require a massive investment to keep it running and there was (and is) no forseeable need for it, inlike our navy and specfors who are an excellent investment and have seen almost constant deployment for some years.
In terms of national defense; any military power able to effectivly threaten New Zealand (ie, by occupying Australia or deploying a fleet of aircraft carriers) was not going to be slowed down by a handful of outdated strike aircraft.
I liked Top Gun too, guys, but there simply wasn’t any rational reason for NZ to maintain an air combat wing.
Vote:November 30th, 2004 at 3:10 pm
Dim and ztev, don’t let the facts spoil a good rant. The Malaysian crisis came well after the second world war. Yes it was twice not once in 60 years. However for 45 of that 60 years we pulled our weight alongside the US and Australia and were available if needed. That’s the real difference which you carefully avoid. So lets hear from you brain boxes, why is it in New Zealand’s interest to sign a non aggression pact with a bunch of jihadist and drug dealer nations at the same time as we do our level best to irritate and alienate the only power in the world capable of pulling our chestnuts out of the fire when the other pricks decide to break your precious agreement?
Vote:November 30th, 2004 at 3:39 pm
Cancelling the airforce combat wing would be more acceptable to our allies and more understable to New Zealanders, if the decision to invest in cruise missiles was then made.
Decision is not smart based on Australiasa’s (sp?)nearest neighbours.
Benign strategic environment – Yeah right.
Vote:November 30th, 2004 at 3:41 pm
If you’d actually read my previous post (this seems to be a major flaw in your abilty to argue online) you’d see that I’m strongly opposed to signing a non-agression pact with Myanmar.
As ztev mentioned earlier (again, reading peoples posts helps here) we have pulled our weight alongside the US and Australia without deploying strike aircraft.
Vote:November 30th, 2004 at 3:52 pm
The non-aggression pact is obviously a political stunt ultimately aimed at placing pressure on the US. That is if the allies in the SW Pacific sign this pact it makes it harder for the US to intervene should it want to. I have no doubt the US State department is placing behind the scenes pressure on NZ and Australia to avoid signing it. Cannot wait for Helen’s reasoning on this. Hope Dipomad has something to say about this.
Vote:November 30th, 2004 at 4:03 pm
1945-2005 is sixty years. Malayan emergency was only time airforce was used since that time. But if you want to include WW2, then NZ Army managed to fight in Libya and Italy without any airforce from NZ- as it would be in the future.
Vote:national hasnt given a unequivocal promise to restore the fast jets, and based on what they did this week , more likely to agree with labour ( dont they allways.)
Remember , it was labour policy not to upgrade the airforce combat wing and they WON the elction, and will WIN the next election. isnt that how a democracy is supposed to work, but Fink seems to prefer the Ukraine model
November 30th, 2004 at 4:19 pm
Dim I can read sufficiently well to see you still refrain from answering the question. You are long on insults and short on substance. If you think NZ’s piddling contributions over the last fifteen years amount to “pulling our weight” then you are dreaming. Our military capability should be at least three times what it is but there has been massive underinvestment while the public service expands and the beneficiary bill explodes. You can harp on about Myanmar but you evade the real question which is to do with all the other countries. Why is a pact in our interests, apart from assisting the lefties further irritate the US?
Vote:November 30th, 2004 at 4:45 pm
Let me take this REALY SLOWLY for you Adolf. I don’t think such a pact is in our interest and I don’t agree with it. This will be my third post in which I very clearly say so. You seem to be making a habit of challenging me to refute statements I haven’t made and don’t agree with. Perhaps this site might be useful in future.
http://teachers.net/mentors/remedial_reading/
Vote:November 30th, 2004 at 4:46 pm
The trouble with Aotearoa signing this pact is that we will probably end up being the only country that observes it and we will observe it to an absurd degree, just as we do all those rediculous United Nations pacts that our pompous self righteous ministers sign up to on everything from spanking kids to providing windfall funds to felons
Vote:November 30th, 2004 at 4:57 pm
Aside from the fact that 20-odd Israeli strike planes effectively destroyed the entire Egyptian air force during the 7 days war, jets are cool. Air shows are not the same without the skyhawks. It’s a display of power and a “don’t mess with me” attitude that these represent. And how long will it take for a boat to get to an invading navy? Hours if not days. It would be a 30 minute flight if we had planes at Whenuapai, Ohakea and Canterbury.
Vote:I might also point out that we have used the skyhawks to defend NZ – a Korean fishing vessel refused to obey a coastguard order to leave NZ waters, it didn’t so a skyhawk was sent. After a missile was fired it promptly left.
Bring on the new planes, I say we should have had the F-16s. They are cool.
And no we shouldn’t promise not to attack Myanmar, or any other state.
November 30th, 2004 at 5:01 pm
(From an ex-air force Aussie)
Actually, the New Zealand air force did deploy to all of those conflicts (helicopters, Hercules) and could have deployed your fighter aircraft to all but Timor. That your government chose not to is the important point to consider. If you have replaced your A-4s with F-16s, there would be plenty of opportunities to deploy them alongside your special forces, etc.
The Kiwi and Aussie air forces used to be fairly well matched (deliberately). The A-4 performed a niche role (Close Air Support) that now must be filled by the F/A 18. They do okay in the job, but don’t kid yourselves that the demise of your fighter aircraft hasn’t left us worse off. New Zealand’s percentage of GDP spent on defence says it all.
This treaty nonsense with ASEAN is simply an attempt to stifle criticism of ASEAN nations. If New Zealand signs up to it, it will just show what moral cowards the NZ government has become.
Vote:November 30th, 2004 at 5:07 pm
You hippie peace-nek fuckers make me sick – the problem is that with the continued disinvestment in defence (by both National and Labour) a lot of young new zealanders will die in the next war – more than necessary. Underinvest in dollars and over pay in blood. Happened in the 30′s when you guys ran down the defence forces and is going to happen again now.
Stay away from the Indos and the other Asian and Islamic countries – much as we make like to pretend that they may be our allies those pricks only look after themselves. Trouble is that this Govt will take a contrarian stance to the Yanks and Aust on principle.
Relying on the Australians and the Yanks to see us through is bludging off of them (which is what the Irish also do off of the UK) Mind you it seems to be the only thing that a lot of people in our country are good at nowdays.
You’ll be apologising for nuking the Japs next.
Vote:November 30th, 2004 at 5:32 pm
One other point which, though painfully obvious, still apparently needs to be made, is that Clark is making noises about a treaty with the ASEAN countries to promote trade with them, not because she wants to annoy the US. If people had RTFA then they’d see that she explicitly said that IF she signed the treaty it would not prevent criticism of any ASEAN nations.
Vote:November 30th, 2004 at 5:33 pm
Good article in the Australian on the treaty:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,11536407%255E7583,00.html
Vote:November 30th, 2004 at 5:40 pm
Dim, you really do provide good sport. At 1.00 you said “I don’t think we should sign a pact with Myanmar…” At 3.41 you repeated “…I’m stongly opposed to signing a pact with Myanmar.”
Vote:Now,at 4.45, for the very first time we see that you feel, after three and a quarter hours of contemplation, that actually you really are against the whole pact. Why didn’t you say that at 1 o’clock? So please don’t talk to me about remedial reading.
November 30th, 2004 at 5:41 pm
She has to hope that whatever she signs is not designed to annoy the US. Even that statement is a defensive climb down for her. Gosh we are being asked to eat crow because we will not allow the nuclear US navy to visit.
Vote:November 30th, 2004 at 6:12 pm
A cursory glance at the article reveals that Myanmar is a member of ASEAN and would be a signatory to any non-agression pact.
http://teachers.net/mentors/remedial_reading/
It’s there if you need it . . .
Vote:December 2nd, 2004 at 5:37 pm
With a combat radius of only 575km, the Skyhawks couldn’t reach Pitcairn from New Zealand – in afct they couldn’t reach any foreign territory whatever. (see http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/a-4-specs.htm)
I suppose we could have mounted a suicide mission against Norfolk Island, should the Norfolkians have ever threatened us.
Fortunately, none of our neighbours has strike aircraft that can cross the Tasman, or indeed any aircraft carriers, so we are unlikely to see hostile aircraft in our skies. (Aside from the US and China – I think that any defence against those two is likely to be futile).
Vote:December 2nd, 2004 at 5:49 pm
I did some more research:
China has no aircraft carriers, Thailand has one, but no working planes. Russia’s aircraft carrier fleet is inoperative.
India has a working carrier – the old British HMS Hermes. (India has always been friendly to NZ)
Britain has three working carriers and is building two more much bigger ones. I think Tony Blair is not planning an invasion of NZ, but you never know.
The US has lots – as I say, we don’t have much chance if they attack, unless they get lost and invade New Guinea instead.
Vote:December 2nd, 2004 at 10:37 pm
It’s interesting that some individuals on this page completely ignore the only person qualified to give an accurate account. Thank you for your comments Bovver, and I have to agree, NZ is bludging whenit comes to our duties in regional and national protection.
Vote: